2. The costs of the lawsuit for retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

purport, purport, ..

Therefore, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ulsan District Court 2001Na680, but this court rendered a ruling dismissing the plaintiff's appeal on May 31, 2001 (hereinafter "the ruling on review").

In other words, the Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2001Da40501, but was dismissed, which became final and conclusive on September 4, 2001.

2. Determination as to the request for retrial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “The Plaintiff’s loan claim KRW 1 million that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant on December 15, 1989 was terminated by the extinctive prescription of the above loan claim in the judgment subject to a retrial, and thus, the extinctive prescription has expired, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there exists grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act”

B. Except for a suit for a retrial filed on the grounds of defects in the right of representation in judgment or the matters stipulated in Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act, if five years have passed after the judgment became final and conclusive, a suit for retrial is not filed (Articles 457 and 456(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). It is evident that the suit for retrial of this case was filed on March 3, 201, which was more than five years after the date on which the decision for retrial became final and conclusive, was filed on September 4, 2001, which was the date on which the decision for retrial became final and conclusive. Thus,

3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.